If
the Bush administration had any confidence in their Iraq policy they would
have plopped Saddam’s name on the ballot. That way we’d know whether Iraqis
would rather continue on the ruinous path of occupation or return to the
“good old days” of the former tyrant. Instead, we’re left with a spaghetti
bowl of candidates whose names tell us nothing about the success or failure
of the American strategy. Despite Junior Bush’s assertion of “resounding
success,” the elections have only further obscured the real source of the
current dilemma: occupation.

Judging by the 57%
turnout (quickly lowered from the absurdly optimistic 72% reported by the
Western press) the elections were not the earthshaking triumph claimed by
the president. Now, it seems, even those estimates have been challenged. For
example, independent journalist Dahr Jamail reports that many Iraqis were
coerced into voting by threatening to withhold their food rations. Saeed
Jodhet was just one of many Iraqis Jamail questioned who admitted that, “Two
of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be
withheld if we did not vote.” Jamail’s other interviews reveal the same
basic pattern of state-sponsored intimidation.

Depending on how
widespread this practice was, (and 65% of Iraqis are now on food rations) it
might have had a profound effect on voter turnout. Clearly, Bush’s “get out
the vote or starve” campaign veers ever-so-slightly from the spirit of
democratic participation.

Nevertheless, Bush’s
plan to show off America’s newest petro-colony as a burgeoning democracy was
probably surging towards the septic tank anyway. As the latest Zogby poll
indicates, 82% of Sunni and 69% of Shiites now favor U.S. forces withdrawing
either immediately or after an elected government is in place. Is it fair to
wonder if these numbers fall within the range of “resounding success”?

Regrettably, our “war
president” ignores the irksome facts that don’t mesh with the “faith-based”
ruminations of his loyal cadres. This ensures that we won’t be leaving Iraq
anytime soon. In fact, Bush sees the elections as a vindication of his
belligerent strategy. Never the stickler for details, Bush seems oddly
oblivious to the suffering his war has caused for the Iraqi people. Does he
realize that the water has been off for eight straight days in Baghdad and
no one seems to know when it will be restored?

Is he aware of the
sputtering electrical grid that only cranks out power for four hours per day
or that the sewage courses through the streets of downtown Baghdad? He
certainly doesn’t grasp that, as Ghazwan al-Mukhtar (retired Iraqi engineer)
said, “After 22 months of occupation the Americans haven’t fixed a single
thing…Unemployment is high; about 60%. People are starving…the Americans are
torturing us.” Mukhtar adds, “And, you want us to be happy with an
election?”

Al Mukhtar’s
sentiments epitomize those of a great many Iraqis who are gradually being
radicalized by their hardscrabble life under occupation. Bush’s windy
bromides of democratic utopia have done little to meet the practical needs
of the people he boasts of having liberated. They’re simply looking for
jobs, food and security -- the foundations of a normal life.

Real Power for the
newly Elected Government?

The notion of
sovereignty has taken a caning by the Bush team. The elections may have
ceremonial value, but as far as imparting real power to government
officials; it’s a dead loss. The US overlords will still control the
borders, air space, oil extraction, economic policy, and deployment of
troops. (Even the ridiculously named Iraqi National Bank is entirely owned
by foreign investors) These are the powers we normally associate with
sovereignty. For all practical purposes, the new regime is just another
“Arab façade”; a coterie of well paid stooges carrying out Washington’s
directives. Yes, they can expect to be celebrated by an enthusiastic media
eager to welcome America’s latest satraps into the fold. And, they’ll also
receive an engraved invitation to the upcoming State of the Union Speech,
where they’ll be showcased next to Crawford Laura like some exotic
Mesopotamian bird captured in the wild. (The Bush people are very big on
diversity) But, as for real power to govern, forget-about-it.

The “One-Voice” Media
celebrates the Elections

Although the elections
may be a hollow exercise of imperial maneuvering, the coup was carried off
with considerable skill. For one thing, the western media proved, once
again, its breathtaking range and ability. All the major televised media
featured virtually the same storyline without one discordant voice. They
praised the “brave Iraqis who put themselves at risk” (as Bush said) to
enjoy the blessings of democracy. This “objective” account was accompanied
by footage of mile-long lines of expectant Iraqis waiting to cast their
first vote in free elections. No mention was made of the fact that (as
Robert Fisk noted) that the world media was limited to exactly five polling
stations that were secured by legions of troops and armored vehicles in
predominantly Shiite areas to give the impression of widespread
participation.

In keeping with the
(Karl) Rovian philosophy of political hi-jinks, the streets were swept
clean, the cement barricades were hidden from view, and the rolls of razor
wire were scrupulously kept off camera. All signs of city under siege were
effectively concealed. It was a solid effort on the part of the White House
producers who slapped this comedy together. Particularly admirable were the
scenes of enraptured Iraqis waving flags and gyrating with abandon on the
streets of Baghdad. What American could watch such a heartwarming
demonstration of elation and not feel choked-up by the great gift Bush has
bestowed on these simple people.

Alas, it was all a
hoax as well. As Robert Fisk opines in his latest article in The
Independent (UK), he stumbled on “three truckloads of youths, all
brandishing Iraqi flags-like the unemployed who have been sticking posters
to Baghdad’s walls-paid by the government to ‘advertise’ the election. And
there was a cameraman from state television.”

“Paid by the
government”?

Ah-ha! Yet another
public relations ploy like the carefully choreographed toppling of Saddam in
Fidros Square, or the staged landing of “Top-Gun” Georgie B. on the USS
Lincoln; this time arranged and financed by ex-CIA operative (and former
Saddam agent) Iyad Allawi.

Shame, shame,
shame!…but good theatre nonetheless. And, besides, the charges of fraud
won’t be forthcoming anytime soon. For now, the balloting is being
celebrated by the media as another positive step towards the anticipated
“transfer of power.” Just listen to the outpouring of the approbation from
the press:

“Iraqis Brave Bombs to
vote in Millions” (MSNBC)

“This is Democracy!” (Reuters)

“Brave Voters defy
Rebels” (NY Post)

“Iraqis begin Historic
Vote” (Washington Times)

Anyway, you get the
idea. A quick perusing of Google headlines produces 1,468 stories with
nearly identical bylines. The Western press is either besotted with Iraq’s
“alleged” metamorphosis or they’re getting their marching orders from the
“Sec-Def” at the Pentagon. Either way, it’s a waste of time looking for
divergent points of view in the establishment media. Anything that fails to
harmonize with the Conquistador agenda has been conscientiously extracted by
the roots.

NYT’s profound remorse
for the deceased

The “Paper of Record”
gave its typically glib assessment of the elections by noting “a
comparatively peaceful day of voting”. In the parlance of the New York
Times that means that only 41 Iraqis were killed; “chump-change” for
America’s prodigious war-machine, unless, of course, you happen to be the
disconsolate wife or child who just lost your father or brother to a nervous
Marine with a hair-trigger finger. In any event that’s not the business of
the NY Times. They’ve got a war to cover and (like Tommy Franks says)
they don’t do body counts.

Similarly, Corporate George added his voice to
the chorus of praise with his characteristic chest-thumping, “I-told-you-so”
rhetoric saying “The people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world
is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle
East…Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against
democracy, but we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against
them”…and, blah, blah, blah; like the shallow whistling of hot air emerging
from a flat tire.

George W. may be
crowing “victory” a bit prematurely. Iraq is not quite ready for the trophy
case alongside Bush’s warlord-dominated, drug-colony, Afghanistan. And,
despite the celebratory braying from the obsequious press, 20% of the
population boycotted the elections, and that 20% (Sunnis) have ruled Iraq as
long as anyone can remember. They’ll have their say before the day is done.

Bush can revel in his
Pyrrhic victory; everyone enjoys seeing happy, ballot-clutching folks
mugging for the cameras. But, beyond the circumscribed range of the media,
the fighting rages on.

Attacks on the polls
occurred in Baghdad, Balad, Basra, Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Mosul, Tal Afar,
Al-Duluiya, Al-Mhawil, Al Muqtadiya and Samarra. This is the tragic litany
of the Torturer-in-Chief’s ongoing depredations in Iraq; a list that will be
faithfully excluded from today’s festive coverage of election results.
Reality rarely intrudes into the bubble of managed perceptions that encloses
the American public. Today will be no different.

The suffering, torture
and death unleashed by America’s blundering military campaign have been
suspended to rejoice in this moment of unalloyed, Orwellian ecstasy. Bush
has acquired his fig leaf of legitimacy and the rudiments of a client regime
that will assist him in his long-range goals, but at what cost to both
Iraq’s future and America’s prestige. The Iraqi elections are just another
sloppily executed fiasco magnifying the cynical intentions of their authors.
They’ll have no measurable affect on the unfolding disaster.